Friday, 13 October 2017

Indonesia Bishop Resigns in Finance, Mistress Scandal

·Associated Press

Pope Francis gives the thumbs up as he leaves at the end of his weekly general audience, in St. Peter's Square, at the Vatican, Oct. 11, 2017. Pope Francis on Wednesday accepted the resignation of Bishop Hubertus Leteng of Indonesia's Ruteng diocese.

VATICAN CITY —

A Roman Catholic bishop in Indonesia has resigned following reports that he had a mistress and siphoned off more than $100,000 in church funds.

Pope Francis on Wednesday accepted the resignation of Bishop Hubertus Leteng of Indonesia's Ruteng diocese. The Denpasar bishop, Monsignor Sylvester San, will run the diocese until a permanent replacement is found, the Vatican said.

Local Indonesian media and the Ucanews agency, which covers the Catholic Church in Asia, reported that dozens of priests resigned en masse in June to protest Letang's administration.

The Vatican sent an investigator to look into their allegations that Letang had a mistress and secretly borrowed $94,000 from the Indonesian bishops' conference and another $30,000 from the diocese without accounting for it.

According to Ucanews, Letang said the money was used to finance the education of a poor youth, though he declined to provide details. He called allegations he had a relationship with a woman ``slanderous.''

The Vatican didn't address the scandal or explain why Letang was retiring early. The Ruteng diocese made no mention of the allegations in its announcement of Letang's departure Wednesday. Bishops normally submit their resignations when they reach age 75. Leteng is 58.

Catholics represent a minority in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country. The nation nevertheless is home to some 45 bishops and 4,900 Catholic priests, according to 2015 Vatican statistics.

Letang's resignation is the latest in a handful of cases of the Vatican persuading — or in some cases strong-arming — bishops accused of wrongdoing to step down. Often the cases go unnoticed, particularly when they involve in-house financial mismanagement because the Vatican never explains why bishops are leaving their posts.

Sometimes the scandals are well known. In the United States, two bishops accused of botching clerical sexual abuse cases resigned under Vatican pressure in 2015. More recently, Guam's archbishop was forced to step aside after he was put on trial in the Vatican for allegedly sexually abusing young boys. A decision, in that case, is expected soon.

PAT SAYS:

Every day now we hear stories of a Catholic bishop somewhere getting into trouble and Francis accepting their resignations.That's how Rome handles it. Instead of sacking a bishop they say HE OFFERED HIS RESIGNATION.In other words, they are allowed to jump instead of being pushed.Many of the scandals are multiple - a sex scandal joined by a financial scandal.In the case of this Indonesian guy, the $100,000 was pinched by his and his girlfriend.In other cases, it has been a scandal involving money and a man.In some cases, it is child abuse.I think we do not really hear about all the money scandals involving bishops. Bishops are lord of the manor when it comes to the diocese and its funds.It would be very easy for a bishop to divert large sums of money into his own personal accounts or the accounts of mistresses, boyfriends or family members.In fact, I would say that bishops using Church money for their own pursuits is very widespread and that we never hear about it.Sometimes it is the sex scandal that also brings out the financial scandal too.Nowadays bishops keep a very tight financial control on priests.But who checks what a bishop is doing with the diocesan finances?All church accounts should be totally transparent and thge bishop should have a set, public salary and like anyone else should have to hand over receipts for expenses he incurs.For instance, we still do not know if Noel Treanor in Down and Connor spent ONE MILLION of FOUR MILLION on renovating his palace in Belfast ???

I don't recall any figure's being mentioned, Bishop P., but you may be right.

I suspect that the bulk of the money comprised diocesan contributions: donations from parishoners.

I wonder how many of them know that their money was spent to satisfy ostentatious personal taste. Do they even care to know? They should, because they have a certain moral duty to ensure that their money is being spent 'for the good of the Church'. I don't believe any reasonable person could make even a plausible defence for a bishop's spending possibly as much as four million pounds renovating/refurbishing his already palatial home at any time, let alone in a period of economic recession.

The answer for Magna's racism - complete avoidance and zero tolerance. He should be barred as every few days he reverts to his ignorant, nast, offensive ways. He morphs into a grotesque puece of humanity. Pat, you obviously depend on him for your blog! I believe you are losing credibility and any integrity you have by entertaining this arrogant, sick man. Please answer legitimate questions asked of you Pat by contributors. Stop avoiding.

Why did he use such a banal 19 century comment about people having workAnd why under all that is good and progressive would any bishop need to live in such a structure....nothing resembling the child in the manger.No wit, no understanding of how his flock will look upon this.He needs to get back to his roots and to the roots of the laity that expect to see a humble leader, no one that pushes a button to close his curtainsDisgusting read today

Pat can you not publish comments from any poster about another posterThought you had agreed to stick with blog comments only.Please delete any comments about posters: shouldn’t be that difficult.You could have deleted the personal comments in the above post at 12.25.Most of us are sick of it.

When the Irish News quizzed Noel about the cost of upgrading Lisbreen he said that the final figure was unknown, because all the invoices weren't in. Surely they've all been received by now? The Irish News should revisit the story.

Also, if Lisbreen was so rundown, damp and gloomy and needing structural repairs the diocese should have sold it off and purchashed a new build house, or left the bishop in the six bedroom house he occupied while works on Lisbreen was going on. A new house would have cost a lot less than £1-4m, plus the proceeds of the Lisbreen sale would cover the cost.

From various comments of mine on this blog, you should be aware by now, Bishop Pat, that I hold His 'Oiliness', Pope Francis, in almost visceral contempt. He is unashamedly two-faced on various, moral issues (the protection of children, for instance, from paedophile priests and their ennabling bishops): on the one hand, issuing attractive soundbites expressing empathy and solidarity with the vulnerable and/or marginalised; on the other, behaving in ways that are completely, and shockingly, contradictory of this. He is, truly, a pope who has further lowered people's expectations of the papacy (which must rank almost as a miracle of biblical significance, given the papacy-trashing, autocratic, hypocritical, and paedophile-protecting behaviour of his immediate two predecessors).

It is hard sometimes to express one's contempt for such a person's behaviour without using words that offend (at least, the willingly offended). Indeed, I seem to recall that you yourself are not averse to using similar words and phrases.

I know, too, that I am frequently reviled by certain commentors here, with such words as 'creep' (very recently), and 'creature' (again, to mention but a few), and many contemptuous references to alcoholism, and mental instability.

I almost find it amusing that those who are so hot under their indignant moral collars about my applying that descriptive word to Pope Francis' behaviour were mute, deafeningly so, when it came to the frequent, and far worse, abuse that I have had to endure here. I shan't fully say what effect this hypocrisy has on me.

I'm afraid (and you're not going to like this, but I hope you'll publish it nevertheless, since you invited me to comment) that I couldn't give the proverbial tuppence for their manufactured and selective moral outrage.

Magna in respect of your criticisms of Francis could you please give information on actions taken by him of which you are critical, as opposed to actions you believe he should have taken. The latter could well be considered subjective value judgement. Additionally they may well not reflect the reality of the information at Francis's disposal, when he accessed it, nor the factors hindering him acting. Just as we now read of Trumps frustration at being unable to wield unrestricted executive power by the checks and balances of the US constitution, Francis has to contend with a Vatican self serving hierarchy much concerned with preserving status power and privilege possibly resenting changes to vested interests. For my part since I don't follow RC church doings other than standard news and +Pat's blog, my impression is that Francis seeks genuine changes but battles with Vatican vested interests. MMM

Agree with you A onfire, there was no need whatsoever for any person supported by the common people to live in this expensive renovation.Many a developer could have turned it into a hotel ,a night club ,a pub or another money making venture : would still have given work to ( our poor, ha ha that’s another laugh)

I agree with Magna that there is not much integrity in the church. They seem to say one thing and do something else. I don't always agree with the way he states his case. It is better to keep it factual.

Even if Lisbreen's renovations cost £1m, the lowest figure quoted, it's madness when a new episcopal palace in an agreeable part of Belfast could be bought for around £700k. Just search Belfast houses for sale on PropertyPal. Seriously fancy houses for less than £1m.